Clarification of misconceptions, allegations, criticism, and slander against the Noble Qur'an and its Messenger (ﷺ)

Menu

Questions and Answers

This blog witnesses a number of questions asked in the comments section that do not pertain to the article above. For issues that require a detailed response, an article is penned down; however, there are a number of issues that can be settled by a quick and short response.

This page is dedicated to such questions. If you have an article request or a clarification for an issue not found on the site, then please drop it here.

Although the author has made it clear that she wasn’t pregnant when the blind man killed her, he forgot to take into account another hadith from Bulugh Al Maram where it clearly states that she was. Below is the link :

The Prophet SAW had stated that there is no Diyah for her as she was considered an enemy or a Kafir harbi. However, did he SAW passed any judgement on the blind man for causing the death of the foetus? That is if there was a foetus that which she undergo premature labor that fell between her legs in the first place and not one of her grown sons as pointed out by the author of islamqa.info.

The hadith is very confusing. The Prophet SAW had made it forbidden for men to behave violently towards women especially the wives. He SAW also said that oppression between believers is Haram. He SAW even said that those men who did so are not the best believers. Unfortunately, the hadith of Aisha RA seems to indicate that it was an every day norm for husbands to beat their wives back then. Didn’t she RA know that the Prophet SAW had made it clear for husbands not to beat their wives with harshness and that it was to be done lightly without leaving any marks?

We have a Hadith where it clearly mentions this issue, in the above issue the women doesn‘t complain about being hit, but here it is clear:

Yahya ibn Sa’eed reported: Habeeba bint Sahl was the wife of Thabit ibn Qais and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, that they were married and she was his neighbor. Thabit had struck her, so she appeared at the door of the Prophet and she said, “Thabit and I can no longer be married.” The Prophet said to Thabit:

It was not a common thing that men beat women and the Prophet (s) allowed it. Aisha (r) herself said: “It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women”. Women support other women and this is what happened in this case as well.

If we read the full narration, we find that there is not really a problem for us. The woman made an insulting remark towards the man who slapped her.

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). ***It was the habit of ladies to support each other***, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

This was a case of a dispute between a couple where the woman wanted to return to her ex-husband, blamed the current husband for a thing he was not blameworthy of, who got angry because of that and slapped her. This is nothing to do with Islam encouraging such behaviour. Moreover, we see that Aisha (r) said: It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. She lent her support to the believing woman by highlighting the plight and not that women were oppressed by Islam.

In your response to ‘The People vs Muhammad – A Psychological Analysis’ could you clarify and extend your explanation on the tongue sucking part? I read in Ash-Shifa by Qadi Iyad that it was meant to quench the thirst of both Hassan and Hussein RA. However there are other reports which give the impression that it was done mostly out of passion. We can see a parallel between the Prophet’s SAW kisses with Aisha RA, as reported in Sunan Abu Dawud, his SAW two grandsons and, as mentioned in other reports, Fatimah RA. Are these reports authentic? Is a passionate kiss between wives and blood relatives a real Sunnah? Indeed there are anti-islamic bigots and polemicists who claim evil about the Prophet SAW (Nauzubillah! May Allah SWT curse them).

Thank you but I’ve already read that article and even pointed out in my comment that it was done to quench their thirst. There are other hadiths which state that the Prophet SAW did it passionately. Below are links to the hadiths :

The first two mention the same incident and are from Al-Adab Al-Mufrad. One is graded Hasan while the other is Daif. The last one mentions about Aisha RA and it is graded Daif. When we we read the second hadith it states that the Prophet SAW gave Hassan RA a kiss. This can be understood if we read the third about Aisha RA where it mentions that the act was actually a kiss. What exactly is the truth regarding the act? Was it to quench the thirst of both grandsons RA, an act of passion or both? Even typing this makes me uncomfortable. It’s like impugning the noble character of the Prophet SAW (لا قدر الله) which is not my intention.

Also, could you do a response regarding the hadith in Sahih Muslim of the young woman who was given by Abu Bakar RA to Salama RA after the raid against the Banu Fazara tribe? The hadith states that she was with her mother before they were taken as captives. When Salama brought the woman to Medina, the Prophet SAW asked him to give her to him so as to be made as ransom for a number of Muslim prisoners in Mecca. The hadith gives the impression that she was the only one to be made as ransom. Were all the other captives ransomed as well? I can’t help but feeling that she was deliberately separated from her mother. Was her mother also given to Salama RA? Was she ransomed for Muslim prisoners too along with her daughter? The hadith as certain malicious critics like to point out states that the Prophet SAW gave Salama a free pass to rape (Nauzubillah!) the woman for one night before requesting him again to give her as ransom for the prisoners the next day. I would also want to know whether there is any verdict or rule from past ulama that it is legal to separate slaves from their families. Wallahi I seriously want to be wrong on this matter and whether this is equivalent to the slaves being separated from their families during the European and American slave trade. In the meantime I’ve found hadiths that negate Muslims to separate blood-related slaves from each other. Below are the links :

The first two are from Sunan Ibn Majah and both are graded Daif. The third and fourth are from Jami’ At-Tirmidhi and one is graded Hassan while the other is Daif. The last one is from Sunan Ibn Dawud and it is graded Hassan. What is the truth to these hadiths and are they corroborated with any other hadiths that are Sahih. I haven’t found one. This issue is distressing me, the hadiths seem to contradict the one from Salama (if the slave girl was even separated from her mother). Below is a link to another hadith where the Muslims back then used to sell slave women who had children with them and it is graded Sahih. What’s more disturbing is that the Prophet Muhammad SAW approved of it.

I found this to be rather confusing. Why did Umar RA utter such a statement? I know that marrying prolific women is held in high regard because it increases the umma but that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to belittle women who are barren. Surah 42:49-50 clearly shows that being barren is both the will and wisdom of Allah SWT in His creation and it is not be viewed as something blameworthy. What are your thoughts on this?

Jabir b. ‚Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‚Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat ‚Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to ‚A’isha and slapped her on the neck, and ‚Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:“ Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward“ (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to ‚A’isha and said: I want to propound something to you, ‚A’isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

So the part about slapping in the neck was answered by Imam Nawawi in his Sharh:

Imam Al-Nawai in his book “explanation of Sahih Muslim” ( 10 / 336 ) said: The word يجأ means to slightly stab their necks. As to disciplined them and not to cause heavy damage to their necks. The Source is in Arabic

But how would you respond to the part where Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, slapped Hafsa? Is the translation correct, cause I‘ve read also that the word means poked, but I‘m not sure, could you explain this a bit more in sha Allah? Maybe from imam Nawawi or other scholars?? BarakAllahu feek!

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, “Will you ride or shall I get down?” Abu Bakrsaid, “I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah.”

Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, “You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

“I advise you ten things:

Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”

As far as a Christian will say, the ones referred as having middle-shaved heads were the monks with tonsured haircuts. I’m confused by this because monks at that time mostly spend their lives learning about their religion and being secluded inside churches and monasteries as the hadith rightly points out. Does this mean that some monks were left out from being spared? I’ve read in Wikipedia regarding the expedition of Usama ibn Zayd that Imam Shafi’i believed that monks are not considered non-combatants and that Abu Bakr temporarily left those monasteries intact in order to focus on military operations. Is there any truth to this? According to historical records, monks were never involved with politics and warfare so how can they be considered as combatants? This is indeed a historical error on the part of Imam Shafi’i. There is a report in Al-Waqidi vol. 2 p. 758 that during the expedition to Mu’tah, the Prophet SAW gave the following commands :

Attack in the name of Allah, and fight His
enemy and yours in Al-Sham. You will encounter
men secluded in monasteries, withdrawn from
others. Do not attack them. You will find other
people seeking out Satan and sin. Draw your
swords against them. Do not kill a woman or
a young child, or the old and senile. Do not
destroy the date palm, cut down trees, or destroy
a dwelling.

There is no mention of tonsured monks being excluded. Nor is there any mention that monasteries were to be destroyed, in fact the Prophet SAW clearly said not to destroy places of dwellings which include said monasteries. How did Imam Shafi’i made the verdict that they should be destroyed? More importantly did Abu Bakr RA (لا قدر الله) broke one of the commandments of the Prophet SAW? The Muwatta of Imam Malik is indeed considered one of the most authentic hadith collections besides the two sahihs so there is no denying the veracity of the hadith above. Why would Abu Bakar RA ordered the killing of tonsured monks? Did they pose any threat if the claim of them being involved in war is true?

Additionally, the Wikipedia page mentions, albeit indirectly, a counter tradition from Abu Yusuf that Abu Bakar RA ordered his commanders to lay waste to every village where he did not hear the call to prayer. What is the authenticity of this one? Need help.

It was not just he monks who partially shaved their head but the Christian holy warriors as well; they, many a times, had strange haircuts. As for the monks and other religious folks, it is clearly stated: “You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves”.

If you share the Wikipedia quote/ref., I will be better able to look into it.

Can someone clarify the meaning of the hadith about the majority of hell fire dwellers being women?

logo

Aa

Basic Tenets of Faith
Belief
Belief in the Last Day and the Signs of the Hour
Paradise and Hell
Etiquette, Morals and Heart-Softeners
The Heart Softeners
More Women in Hell Than Men?
21457

EN
Question

Why will there be more women in hell than men?
Answer
Praise be to Allah.
It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)

With regard to the reason for this, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about it and he explained the reason.

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 1052)

It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’”

W/Salaam. If you don’t find an answer on this site, look for it on letmeturnthetables.com and icraa.org – there are reasonable chances to find what you’re looking for. If not, then I would be glad to pen down something on the subject.

Assalamualaikum can someone do a refutation regarding the Qur’an being an intercessor for its companions on the Day of Judgement? I’ve heard from Christian missionaries that this is “proof” of the Trinity. According to them, since the Qur’an is the Word of Allah SWT and it will intercede for us then this means that the Word of Allah SWT is alive and a separate being (Nauzubillah). Indeed there are narrations about this and below is an article addressing this topic :

However it didn’t crossed the author’s mind that by attributing anthropomorphism to the Qur’an gives the understanding that the Word of Allah SWT is alive and a separate being (Nauzubillah). What is the authenticity or correct understanding of those hadiths. Please I need a refutation on this.

Barak Allahu feekum thank q brother. Btw if you watch public religious discussions and debates then
please support our noble cause by subscribing to the Andalusian Project run by brother Asadullah Ali. I’m sure u know he’s the author of the iJihad series.

Assalamualaikum do u think u could revise your article regarding the people of Thamud? I was thinking u should address every hadith mentioning them. There is one hadith in Sahih Muslim where it states that their stony abodes were present.

It is said that the Nabateans were also experts in irrigation and that there are many wells at Al Hijr that are traced back to their time. Can it be said that they inherited this skill from previous nations like the people of Thamud since they also constructed wells? I also need to ask, in which I’m sure you’ve answered, about where exactly in Al Hijr can we find those carved houses attributed to the people of Thamud and the she-camel’s well mentioned in Sahih hadiths? In the hadiths it is said that the companions were forbidden from taking water from wells besides the well of the she-camel. Can it also be said that there are wells remaining from the people of Thamud (based on that specific location in Al-Hijr ventured by the Prophet SAW and his companions) and are cursed?

Assalam aleykym wa rahmatullah.
1. How refuted incident in in Dhul-Khalasa? So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/381
Historical context and what mean “killed whoever was present there”? Also bothering me one verse from the book of idols(hisham kalibi):
The women of the Khath’am were, then, humiliated
By the men of the Abmas, and abased.”
What mean “humiliated and abased by the men of the Ahmas”? Does this mean that these women were raped???
2. What punishment according to sharia is assigned to a slaveholder who killed his slave?

Jarir’s statement “we killed whoever we found there” is not an absolute statement. Implied in this particular phrase is that combatants were killed as necessary, not that literally everyone there was killed. It is well known that the Prophet SAW would warn his military deputies to fear Allah SWT, which is to say fear committing acts of injustice, and specifically to avoid harming civilians and non-combatants.

Buraydah reported: If the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent a commander to the army, he would enjoin him personally to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him, saying:

Go forward in the name of Allah, with Allah, and upon the religion of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill the elderly, children, young people, or women. Do not steal from the spoils but collect them, and behave righteously and in the best manner. Verily, Allah loves those who behave in the best manner.

Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2608, Grade: Hasan

Many traditions of this nature establish the principle that civilians, non-combatants, and surrendering soldiers may not be harmed in battle. Jurists and commentators on the tradition of Jarir never understood his statement to mean it is permissible to kill these protected classes of people. Indeed, not even terrorists who claim to be Muslims use the statement of Jarir to justify their misdeeds, instead relying on another train of distorted logic.

As for the context and the fate of the women, I’m confused about them myself. We hope for some clarification Insya Allah.

First note that the hadith appears in Sahih al-Bukhari and therefore is considered as trustworthy by sunni scholars.

Secondly if you open Sahih al-Bukhari and read the next hadith in the same section https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/382 you will realize that Jarir and his hundred or hundred fifty companions demolished that “Deity and its house of worship”. The prophet choose Jarir actually because he was from the tribe of Khat’aam who was living in that place. The 3rd hadith https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/383 in the same section also doesn’t by any means say that he killed people without any opposition or unfounded, but that he demolished the place of worship of an Idol and called and invited them to Islam before fighting them. And so on ibn Hajar (see in http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=7852&idto=7857&bk_no=52&ID=2250) quoted that al-Hakim quoted a hadith saying that Jarir جرير بن عبد الله البجلي was ordered to demolish the Idol (Dhul Khalasa) and the house of worship and to invite his tribe to Islam and to give them 3 days before using the sword against them and demolishing the Idol they were worshiping. So he didn’t kill anybody unless they refused to refrain from worshiping other than Allah and/or fought him and his companions.
Source https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/52250/shubuhat-about-demolition-dhul-khalasa-by-jarirra-and-ahmas
But with the verse from hisham kalibi, the question still remains …

It can now easily be established that the companions did not kill non-combatants and that the statement, “killed whoever we found there” is clearly not meant literally nor can it be applied to justify any terrorist action. Now, many anti-Muslim/Islam apologists cite two lines regarding Dhul-Khalasah from a book titled, “The Book of Idols” by Hisham ibn al-Kalbi which are as follows:

The women of the Khath’am were, then, humiliated

By the men of the Abmas, and abased.

The argument made is that these lines of poetry refer to Muslim soldiers raping the women of Khath’am but there are many issues with this claim:

The anti-Muslim/Islam apologists don’t realize that they have refuted themselves by citing this passage, as it implies that men and women were not killed in order to be “humiliated” and “abased” in the first place.

Anyone who suffers defeat in war will feel humiliated and abased therefore anti-Muslim/Islam apologists are deceptively reading rape into this passage when it says nothing of the sort.

We know that they didn’t rape anyone because rape is forbidden in Islamic law as several hadiths demonstrate, one of which being, “Do not cause harm or return harm.” (Sunan Ibn Majah 2340, Grade: Sahih). Rape causes harm and is therefore forbidden. The burden of proof is on the apologists to provide genuine evidence of rape, rather than making several unsubstantiated assumptions. In Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1454, a woman accuses a man of rape and her testimony was enough to start the legal process, for the whole narration see: What Does The Quran Say About Rape?. In Sunan al-Bayhaqi 18685, the second Caliph, Umar (RA), has a man stoned because he takes a slave girl unjustly, for the whole narration see: Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?.

Hisham ibn al-Kalbi is rejected in hadith and is not a reliable transmitter. For criticism of him, see: IslamWeb

Jazak Allahu Khayran! My thoughts exactly. The account, if it’s even authentic, that the women witnessed the fall of their men and were brought in as slaves by the soldiers of Abmas can be seen as them being “humiliated” and “abased”.

Assalam aleykum. Bro Rahma,urgently need your help, you are well versed in such matters. The first sky is our cosmos? And if so, how can we understand the Hadith, which says that the distance between the heavens is 500 years of walking, if the farthest galaxy is at a distance of 13.2 billion light years?

Wa’alaykumusSalaam, the Hadith mentions the couches in heaven and states that they are very vast like the distance between the heavens. Then 500 years is mentioned but does not state ‘by walking’. It could be at the speed of light or something else. Allahu A’alam.

It is written that five hundred years of travel. This is clearly a journey of walking, at best, on camels … Also, Ibn Hajjar says that five hundred years of calm walking a pedestrian… http://islamport.com/w/srh/Web/2747/7685.htm
How to be ???

Brother, the Prophet (s) simply described the greatness of the couches and not the actual distance between the heavens. He first said that the distance is vast like the heavens – this does not mean actual and same distance but to give a picture to the listener that the distance is huge. Then he described in other detail that it is equal to travelling for 500 years.

Secondly, even if you want to get very literal, which is not required here, then Ibn Hajr’s understanding can be relaxed a bit and we can say that the actual Hadith does not mention ‘walking’. From the quick search I’ve done, I haven’t found ‘walking’ in the Hadith but am open to be corrected.

Assalam aleykum wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuh. Bro Rahma, what is the hukm about the black dogs killing? I know that in general the killing of the dogs was canceled, but does this include black dogs? and if not, how can we explain this?

Assalam aleykum wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuh. Bro Rahma, such a question arose. About this hadith:https://sunnah.com/urn/69900
Quote: You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son.
Why Jahannam mention WIFE and son of Allah? What is the point if people of the scripture do not believe that Allah has a wife? It seems that the Prophet (peace be upon him) adhered to primitive views that having a son means physical birth in the presence of a spouse, but Christians and Jews don’t believe in such a thing. please clarify this point.

Christians have continued to update their religion and have removed Mary from the Trinity now. They argue that she was never in the Trinity but a basic look at some of their historical TV shows is sufficient to know how they treated Mary. Any way, I will not delve into that. What is important to know is that they call Jesus the ‘begotten’ son of God. If this is metaphorical, then what makes him different from anyone else. Even the Old Testament calls many prophets as sons of God; their books state that the peacemakers are blessed for they will be called sons of God. How are these sons of God different from The Son of God? Even furthermore, if we read the description of how Mary became pregnant, the act is a very physical one; the Holy Ghost had intercourse with her according to their books. They want a son now but ignore the mother. Even today in common Christian usage is the term ‘mother of God’.

They believe in many things which they refuse to acknowledge from their tongues.

Assalamualaikum can someone help refute Sam Shamoun’s article about Ismail AS not being the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad SAW? I know an article has already written on this but the missionary started his claim with written Biblical and Islamic material. A refutation is needed to debunk Sam’s use or misuse of those sources.

….When the apostle of Allah conquered Khaibar and he had peace of mind, Zaynab Bint al-Harith, the brother of Marhab, who was the spouse of Sallam Ibn Mishkam, inquired, “Which part of the goat is liked by Muhammad?” They said, “The foreleg.” Then she slaughtered one from her goats and roasted it (the meat). Then she wanted a poison which could not fail. …. The apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the apostle of Allah said, “Hold back your hands! because this foreleg; …informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said, “By Him who has made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from emitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong.

From this narration the christian apologist David Wood said the following :

“Why did Muhammad need a revelation when you could taste the poison? Isn’t this proof that Muhammad was actually making up revelations? Isn’t it obvious that he tasted the poison same as Bishr, but instead of saying “Hey, I taste poison”, He said: “It’s speaking to me! I’m a prophet!” Sounds like a fake to me.”

Muhammad claimed that the lamb he was eating spoke to him and told him that it was poisoned. So he got a special revelation because he was a Prophet. Two questions: 1) Why didn’t the roasted lamb say something 5 minutes earlier, which would have saved Muhammad’s life, not to mention Bishr’s life? and 2) Why did Muhammad need a revelation when you could taste the poison? Isn’t this proof that Muhammad was actually making up revelations? Isn’t it obvious that he tasted the poison same as Bishr, but instead of saying “Hey, I taste poison”, He said: “It’s speaking to me! I’m a prophet!” Sounds like a fake to me.

Asking why God predestined that Bishr died in that fashion and why the Prophet (peace be upon him) ate the sheep is delving into God’s divine plan for us. Wood knows better than to ask such questions, for he knows that in theology God has a plan for everyone and we shouldn’t be pests needing to know the answer to every single thing ordained for us.

If Wood insists on asking such questions, then we would recommend a couple of beneficial questions to ask such as:

– Why didn’t Jesus clearly and unambiguously communicate that he was God so that this wouldn’t be a matter of debate after him?

– Why didn’t God preserve the New Testament in a way so that none of its texts has doubt casted upon it and avoid the result of having millions of people apostatizing from Christianity and being turned off from converting to it?

Wood asks why revelation would have been necessary when the poison could be tasted. Was Wood there? Does he know how strong the taste of the poison was? Does Wood know how long it would take an average person to have detected it before swallowing it? These are just silly questions and Wood is just trying to push any argument he possibly can on this. This is nothing more than a clear sign of desperation.
Source. https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_taking_of_poison

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/41/19 What these tricksters do is look for less than authentic narrations while the authentic ones are present as well. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d is a history book and reliability of history books is not as strong as that of Hadiths. Authentic one is posted.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/41/19 What these tricksters do is look for less than authentic narrations while the authentic ones are present as well. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d is a history book and reliability of history books is not as strong as that of Hadiths. Authentic one is posted.

The author explained that the girl had reached puberty which therefore indicates that she could took care of herself. However that still doesn’t help explain the reasoning why it’s ok to send her off to the Meccans and ransoming her for Muslim captives while letting the mother, if it is the case, stay behind in Medina. I’ve read an article in Let Me Turn The Tables that the mother was actually Umm Qirfa who was executed during the raid so they weren’t actually separated. Yet an article in Islamweb explains that the story is not authentic. Hope this is addressed soon.

Assalamualaikum with regards to marriage being an enslavement I believe I’ve finally understood what the author of Islamweb meant. A side explanation can be taken from a user called Aseeraf Cat whose comment i.e. last of the four replies for the uppermost comment by the channel’s author can be found at the YouTube channel Salam Zaid Al-Iraqi and under the video clarifying women’s testimony in Islam.

What do you think about the contention that the prophet adapted his wirld views based on suggestions or corrections by some Jews?

For example in Sunan an-Nasa’i where the prophet changes the wordings of an oath and an expression based in the suggestion of a Jew “It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Yasar, from Qutailah, a woman from Juhainah, that a Jew came to the Prophet and said:
“You are setting up rivals (to Allah) and associating others (with Him). You say: ‘Whatever Allah wills and you will,’ and you say: ‘By the Ka’bah.'” So the Prophet commanded them, if they wanted to swear an oath, to say: “By the Lord of the Ka’bah;” and to say: “Whatever Allah wills, then what you will.”

Or from the same book “The Messenger of Allah came to me and there was a Jewish woman with me who was saying: ‘You will be tested in your graves.’ The Messenger of Allah got upset and said: ‘Rather the Jews will be tested.”‘ ‘Aishah said: “A few nights later, the Messenger of Allah said: ‘It has been revealed to me that you will be tested in your graves.”‘ ‘Aishah said; “Afterward I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave”.

Here a revelation came confirming what the Jew first suggested and which the prophet was unaware of

The Prophet (s) and the Muslims would speak these words without intending any form of shirk but since the Jew found it to be troubling, he (s) changed it. His change was not a change in Islamic principles or policies but to satisfy him that ‘if you find these words polytheistic, then we can change them – our beliefs do not change simply because of some words’. We see such examples even now – some whacky Muslim groups use strange and weird words for the Prophet (s) or Ali (r) and almost make them gods besides Allah. They state that their intention is not that but the words do indicate this way. If their intention was not that, they would have modified their words but they refuse to do so and play around the ‘interpretation’. What the Prophet (s) used to say was not problematic but since others found them to be so, he changed the words to not have any form of doubt at all.

The Prophet (s) was very accommodating to the Jews earlier on and would heed their requests quite a lot but when their stubbornness and refusal to embrace Islam reached a point, he did not cater to them as much.

On the contrary, if the Prophet (s) created Islam and not Allah, then he would have resisted their recommendations to alter anything. Openness to modify the wordings shows that it did not matter either way but helping the Jews by this change would not leave more excuses for them.

There are many instances where revelation came down after the Sahaba requested some things. There is a famous narration of Umar (r) stating that his statement agreed with that of his Lord in three things. He had hoped for hijab, punishment for alcohol and so on and Allah revealed these later on. This is not an issue for the Muslims since the Qur’an was revealed over 23 years and many verses were direct results of the circumstances around at the time.

Furthermore, one must know that Allah allowed the Prophet (s) the right to Ijtihad. He would choose many things based on judgment and if it did not coincide with the will of Allah, Allah would send revelation to modify that ruling. This allowance of Ijtihad was essential and helped the Sahaba later on and continues to help the scholars.

Thank you for the great information on your site.
A question regarding Khaybar. How do we respond to the criticism that Ali was sent with a message of forced conversion to the Jews “O Messenger of Allah, on what basis should I fight the people?” He said: “Fight them until they bear witness that none has the right to we worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they do that, then they have protected from you their blood and their wealth, except for a right that is due, and their reckoning will be with Allah.”

Assalamualaikum brother I was just thinking that you should debunk Ali Sina’s article that the Prophet SAW suffered from acromegaly. He brought up the footprint of the Prophet SAW which is of abnormal size, his blessed sandals and certain narrations from Islamic sources that seemingly back up his argument.

It was narrated that Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: There was a Christian man who became Muslim and read al-Baqarah and Aal ‘Imraan, and he used to write for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He went back to being a Christian, and he used to say: MUHAMMAD DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING BUT WHAT I WROTE FOR HIM. Allah caused him to die, and they buried him, then the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). So they dug a grave for him and made it deep, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). They dug another hole for him and they made it as deep as they could in the ground, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. Thus they realised that this was not something that people had done, so they left him unburied. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 64, Hadith 124; capital emphasis is mine)

As one can see the Hadith is Sahih. Like the incident with Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh the Christian man contributed to the Divine text. I’m confused as to why the Prophet SAW allowed such contribution? Doesn’t this contradict with many verses highlighting the Qur’an’s immunity from outside influence? Also doesn’t this show that the Qur’anic challenge of inimitablity had been met?

Assalamualaikum can anyone make a response regarding the Prophet SAW supposedly authorizing some changes and additions to the Holy Qur’an? Below are the ahadith (the third one is from Musnad Ahmad and it’s in Arabic) :

As one can see the ahadith are Sahih. It is claimed that the Christian man contributed to the Divine text with regards to Surah al-Baqarah and Surah al-Imran. I’m confused as to why the Prophet SAW allowed such contribution? Doesn’t this contradict with many verses highlighting the Qur’an’s immunity from outside influence? Doesn’t this amount to tampering? How can we reconcile this with 69:44-46 of the Qur’an since this is like ascribing false sayings to Allah SWT? This incident is similar to the one regarding Abdullah ibn Abi Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh but that has been confirmed to be baseless. Need help.

The Christian man became a Muslim and when Wahi was revealed, he used to write it down. Later when he left Islam, he used to say that he made up these verses. This was what he used to claim and let him do whatever he wants; how does it mean that he added anything to the Qur’an? Many people in schools and offices steal others’ credit and present things as their own whereas they are not the ones behind them. This ex-Muslim was not the one who made up revelation but he claimed to do so. Obviously an enemy of Islam will talk bad of our religion and I don’t see any issue with this.